This topic has been locked
Developer Game History
As things stand, when a game is removed from the store, it's also wiped from all listings - including the one shown when you search the developer or publisher. It's understandable, but it's also a bit of a detriment to the user, since knowledge of the developer's track record is potentially valuable information in making a purchasing decision. I'd suggest that the listings of pulled software be kept visible when viewing games released onto the store by specific developers/publishers, with maybe a small signifier that the store page itself is no longer available for it.
< >
Showing 1-15 of 63 comments
Rewind 21 Feb, 2017 @ 3:33am 
That would be nice.
MalikQayum 21 Feb, 2017 @ 3:37am 
Originally posted by Kirburple:
As things stand, when a game is removed from the store, it's also wiped from all listings - including the one shown when you search the developer or publisher. It's understandable, but it's also a bit of a detriment to the user, since knowledge of the developer's track record is potentially valuable information in making a purchasing decision. I'd suggest that the listings of pulled software be kept visible when viewing games released onto the store by specific developers/publishers, with maybe a small signifier that the store page itself is no longer available for it.
the game should speak for itself, whether a game developer / publisher has been a part of something before this game is irrelevant, the game should stand on its own merits and not be judged by what has been done before or after it.

what is the saying agian.. don't judge a book by it is cover.
Originally posted by MalikQayum:
Originally posted by Kirburple:
As things stand, when a game is removed from the store, it's also wiped from all listings - including the one shown when you search the developer or publisher. It's understandable, but it's also a bit of a detriment to the user, since knowledge of the developer's track record is potentially valuable information in making a purchasing decision. I'd suggest that the listings of pulled software be kept visible when viewing games released onto the store by specific developers/publishers, with maybe a small signifier that the store page itself is no longer available for it.
the game should speak for itself, whether a game developer / publisher has been a part of something before this game is irrelevant, the game should stand on its own merits and not be judged by what has been done before or after it.

what is the saying agian.. don't judge a book by it is cover.

That saying essentially means to make a judgement call without actually examining any relevant information. I'm advocating for keeping relevant information available and viewable. So uh, that doesn't really hold up, dude.
I do appreciate the sentiment that a product should stand by itself, but consumers should have the chance to know if they're getting involved with a less-than-scrupulous developer. Again, it's about enabling them to make the most informed purchasing decision possible. You haven't really made any kind of argument as to why this information shouldn't be kept available, either, just that you personally don't think it's relevant.
Black_Blade 21 Feb, 2017 @ 4:15am 
Maybe a user can use these site for that?
https://steamdb.info

Over all i kind of do agree with @MalikQayum the game needs to be judge by what it is, not who made it (for good or bad)

And a reason not to show it is the saying that you cant see the Forest with all the trees
Over all for most small developers these is unlikely to have almost any effect, as they very rarely remove games
For big studios how ever like Activsion these becomes a mess, they have lots of copyright games that are removed as of licencing, these mean a huge list of removed games that will show to honstly in my view kind of pointless info
Also remmber Valve dont mark each as a game alonebut a appid, so you can get on a list like that 5 defrent show of the same game for cery of reasons..

And as said that i think you ned to look at the game as what it is not who made it, that makes these kind of pointless...
Originally posted by Black Blade:
Maybe a user can use these site for that?
https://steamdb.info

Over all i kind of do agree with @MalikQayum the game needs to be judge by what it is, not who made it (for good or bad)

And a reason not to show it is the saying that you cant see the Forest with all the trees


The steamdb site doesn't provide ready access to a developer's release history, or I'd be advocating for making that site more visible. Thanks, though.

And that saying doesn't work, either. It refers to being too engrossed in details to see the overall picture. Keeping release histories intact would give a clearer image of a devs track history, which IS the overall picture that I'm referring to, and certainly goes beyond a single game.

Originally posted by Black Blade:
Over all for most small developers these is unlikely to have almost any effect, as they very rarely remove games

This isn't a counter-argument. It happens, and the relevant information is lost in the process. That's enough to warrant this, in my view.

Originally posted by Black Blade:
For big studios how ever like Activsion these becomes a mess, they have lots of copyright games that are removed as of licencing, these mean a huge list of removed games that will show to honstly in my view kind of pointless info

You're going to have to back that up with specifics, because I strongly suspect that you're very wrong about this. And again, it's PART OF THEIR TRACK RECORD. That's the entire point of this.

Originally posted by Black Blade:
Also remmber Valve dont mark each as a game alonebut a appid, so you can get on a list like that 5 defrent show of the same game for cery of reasons..

I don't mean to be a jerk if English isn't your first language, but I honestly can't quite understand this bit.


Originally posted by Black Blade:
And as said that i think you ned to look at the game as what it is not who made it, that makes these kind of pointless...

Consumers should always have the option to make themselves aware of the kind of people they're buying a product from, so they can know that they're purchasing from someone reputable. Arguing against this is like saying that brand reputation is meaningless.
If you personally don't care for having this information to hand, then don't look at it. There are people who would be quite happy to make use of it, especially given the notoriety of certain Early Access failures and the like, and arguing against keeping this information available is to argue against allowing these people to make purchasing decisions based on criteria that they determine to be important to them personally.


Start_Running 21 Feb, 2017 @ 5:15am 
Originally posted by Kirburple:
As things stand, when a game is removed from the store, it's also wiped from all listings - including the one shown when you search the developer or publisher. It's understandable, but it's also a bit of a detriment to the user, since knowledge of the developer's track record is potentially valuable information in making a purchasing decision. I'd suggest that the listings of pulled software be kept visible when viewing games released onto the store by specific developers/publishers, with maybe a small signifier that the store page itself is no longer available for it.

Kind of pointless. Hust do a google search. Clicking on the puyblisher and developer will show all their current games in the store and that would generally be enough.
Originally posted by Start_Running:
Originally posted by Kirburple:
As things stand, when a game is removed from the store, it's also wiped from all listings - including the one shown when you search the developer or publisher. It's understandable, but it's also a bit of a detriment to the user, since knowledge of the developer's track record is potentially valuable information in making a purchasing decision. I'd suggest that the listings of pulled software be kept visible when viewing games released onto the store by specific developers/publishers, with maybe a small signifier that the store page itself is no longer available for it.

Kind of pointless. Hust do a google search. Clicking on the puyblisher and developer will show all their current games in the store and that would generally be enough.


Yes, it does show all of them. Except the ones that have been pulled, which is what I am specifically addressing. And no, that might not be enough, since it does not provide a full picture of their track or the full extent of their interactions with their customers. Some people think these things are important. You don't, and that's fine. Let other people have access to that information if they want it. The only people who stand to lose out are developers and publishers who cultivate a bad track record and a poor reputation.
Start_Running 21 Feb, 2017 @ 6:28am 
Originally posted by Kirburple:
Originally posted by Start_Running:

Kind of pointless. Hust do a google search. Clicking on the puyblisher and developer will show all their current games in the store and that would generally be enough.


Yes, it does show all of them. Except the ones that have been pulled, which is what I am specifically addressing.

And why would that be important? Publishers lose rights to distribute games all the time and developer studios go under and re-form all the time.The important data would be what are the games the publisher/developer has the gall to charge money for,

Some people think these things are important. You don't, and that's fine.
Some people also think phrenology is omportant.. Look. What you're asking for is something to enable you to make shallow snap judgements. t

As said. Most, like yourself, have little understanding about the development side of things or even the many intricacises of publisher/developer interactions.

Let other people have access to that information if they want it. The only people who stand to lose out are developers and publishers who cultivate a bad track record and a poor reputation.

And funnily enough those are the ones that'd be leaste affected. Those who have a bad track recored can simply close and reform. Thusly clearing their track record as developers. It's even easier for publishers who can shuffle papers and create new SBUs to shuffle the bad rep onto.

Secondly It creates an interesting problem fro publishers since you can have a case of the same game being listed under two different publishers. Licenses can expire and be bought and sold. Hell sometimes publication is dvidied along geographic boundaries.

Take Fallout classic. Originally under interplay. The license is now currently held by bethesda.
By your suggestion, the game would show up as being published by both interplay and bethesda.

That creates a scenario where one publisher can get flack for the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ created by another.
MalikQayum 21 Feb, 2017 @ 6:44am 
Originally posted by Kirburple:
Originally posted by MalikQayum:
what is the saying agian.. don't judge a book by it is cover.

That saying essentially means to make a judgement call without actually examining any relevant information. I'm advocating for keeping relevant information available and viewable. So uh, that doesn't really hold up, dude.
I do appreciate the sentiment that a product should stand by itself, but consumers should have the chance to know if they're getting involved with a less-than-scrupulous developer. Again, it's about enabling them to make the most informed purchasing decision possible. You haven't really made any kind of argument as to why this information shouldn't be kept available, either, just that you personally don't think it's relevant.

"I'm advocating for keeping relevant information available and viewable." that is a subjective opinion, you might find that previous games on steam should be viewable, fine, does that then mean if someone elses wants to know whether a dev is hobby dev / educated programmer / game designer that we should also get that information available on the store page.

"consumers should have the chance to know if they're getting involved with a less-than-scrupulous developer."
whether a developer is cashgraber or whatever else should play no role, if you have an interest in the game then you buy it, you feel iffy about it then you look at the reviews if the reviews are mostly negative then it would be an indication that it is most likely not well recieved, that is all the information you really need.

you do not decline a game because that dev also made another game that was really poorly recieved and apply that games recieval on to that new game.

"You haven't really made any kind of argument as to why this information shouldn't be kept available, either, just that you personally don't think it's relevant."
I briefly also got into this earlier but let me make it clear, your opinion that a developers previous games matters is your opinion, i can respect that but i disagree because a game should stand on it is own merits, valve is providing you with every ability to inform yourself about the current game, in form of reviews and letting you play it for 2 hours max within 2 weeks before requesting a refund.

if you just want more information about what a dev has worked on previously then where does it stop ? untill we get a developers lifestory ? because surely someone out there will like you find that, more is needed to be told about these devs.
a developer sometimes makes games which at a given time are pretty decent but over the years it becomes less decent in terms of quality and whatnot and a dev migth want to put that aside because every dev starts out somewhere but if they are going to be constantly reminded that they made / were a part of a game that was poorly made by today or that times standards then that is not going to be fun.

lastly i want to point out, google can be used aswell.
Last edited by MalikQayum; 21 Feb, 2017 @ 6:44am
Track record. Reputation. Consumers knowing who they're dealing with and having easy access to information about everything that's been made under that name.

Now let's go down your reply and see how that weighs up against these ideas.

Originally posted by Start_Running:

And why would that be important? Publishers lose rights to distribute games all the time and developer studios go under and re-form all the time.The important data would be what are the games the publisher/developer has the gall to charge money for,

Distribution rights are irrelevant to what I'm getting at, as are the formation and dissolution of studios. Again. Track record. Reputation. Consumers knowing who they're dealing with and having easy access to information about everything that's been made under that name.



Originally posted by Start_Running:
Some people also think phrenology is omportant.. Look. What you're asking for is something to enable you to make shallow snap judgements.

A blatant false equivalency followed by a thinly-veiled insult.



Originally posted by Start_Running:
As said. Most, like yourself, have little understanding about the development side of things or even the many intricacises of publisher/developer interactions.

Let me make this abundantly clear - insofar as this matter is concerned, I don't give a damn about the difficulties of game development or industry interactions, because it's not the consumer's problem. If a developer gains a poor reputation, whether through poor customer interaction or poor products, it's entirely on them, and "but it's hard" is not a defense, nor is it any kind of rebuttal for the idea of making information regarding past conduct available to the consumer.
Not to mention you're being presumptuous.



Originally posted by Start_Running:
And funnily enough those are the ones that'd be leaste affected. Those who have a bad track recored can simply close and reform. Thusly clearing their track record as developers. It's even easier for publishers who can shuffle papers and create new SBUs to shuffle the bad rep onto.

If it's that simple, I have to wonder why it doesn't happen all the damned time. Because it certainly doesn't seem to. I'd like some examples if I'm wrong on this.



Originally posted by Start_Running:
Secondly It creates an interesting problem fro publishers since you can have a case of the same game being listed under two different publishers. Licenses can expire and be bought and sold. Hell sometimes publication is dvidied along geographic boundaries.

Take Fallout classic. Originally under interplay. The license is now currently held by bethesda.
By your suggestion, the game would show up as being published by both interplay and bethesda.

That creates a scenario where one publisher can get flack for the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ created by another.

Your example doesn't quite hold up since Interplay is listed as the developer on the store page, but you've got a point on that one. Getting around that would ideally mean keeping an accurate record of IPs that change hands. That typically doesn't happen more than once or twice, though. Not sure how much of an extra weight that would put on things.
There's also the nuance that publishers don't get pooped on for development practices themselves unless they made the game in question in-house - they're much more likely to get criticised for business practices, which isn't something that an IP sale would be accompanied by.







Originally posted by MalikQayum:
"I'm advocating for keeping relevant information available and viewable." that is a subjective opinion,

Nothing subjective about it. Past release information is absolutely relevant, and it's pretty self-evident why.



Originally posted by MalikQayum:
you might find that previous games on steam should be viewable, fine, does that then mean if someone elses wants to know whether a dev is hobby dev / educated programmer / game designer that we should also get that information available on the store page.

A studio's release history and a particular staff member's educational/professional history are two EXTREMELY different subjects. False equivalency.



Originally posted by MalikQayum:
"consumers should have the chance to know if they're getting involved with a less-than-scrupulous developer."
whether a developer is cashgraber or whatever else should play no role, if you have an interest in the game then you buy it, you feel iffy about it then you look at the reviews if the reviews are mostly negative then it would be an indication that it is most likely not well recieved, that is all the information you really need.

you do not decline a game because that dev also made another game that was really poorly recieved and apply that games recieval on to that new game.

This is less about recognising the quality of individual games and more about giving the consumer a better chance of spotting patterns of poor business conduct, with a particular nod towards the Greenlight and EA programs, both of which have gained considerable notoriety due to this. In that light, having an idea about the manner of people you're buying a product off is absolutely something that plays a role.
Nowhere did I say that one should take a reaction to one product and apply it directly to another.


Originally posted by MalikQayum:
I briefly also got into this earlier but let me make it clear, your opinion that a developers previous games matters is your opinion, i can respect that but i disagree because a game should stand on it is own merits, valve is providing you with every ability to inform yourself about the current game, in form of reviews and letting you play it for 2 hours max within 2 weeks before requesting a refund.

It's absolutely fine that you have your own methods of determining if you want a product or not. Other people have theirs, and it doesn't make much sense to me to deny them the information that they find relevant to their interests.
And again, this isn't about focusing on a specific game and applying a developer's release history to it, because that would be ridiculous.




Originally posted by MalikQayum:
if you just want more information about what a dev has worked on previously then where does it stop ? untill we get a developers lifestory ? because surely someone out there will like you find that, more is needed to be told about these devs.
a developer sometimes makes games which at a given time are pretty decent but over the years it becomes less decent in terms of quality and whatnot and a dev migth want to put that aside because every dev starts out somewhere but if they are going to be constantly reminded that they made / were a part of a game that was poorly made by today or that times standards then that is not going to be fun.

You touched on this earlier, and I'll the same thing again - personal information about a specific member of a studio is COMPLETELY different from having an overview of that studio's release history.
And if they got involved in a project that turned out poorly, well....that's too bad, really. Gotta own your mistakes and be an adult about it. Sucks, but that's part of how you learn and grow.

Originally posted by MalikQayum:
lastly i want to point out, google can be used aswell.

Convenience is the thing here. It's convenient to have that info easily available within the steam client.
Last edited by Kirb Your Enthusiasm; 21 Feb, 2017 @ 7:12am
Originally posted by 󠀠:
For removed games Steam Store Pages you might be able to find some of them archived for information.
https://archive.org/web/web.php

example: https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://steamhost.cn/app/38220/

http://timekillerz.eu/removed/index.php

It would have been nice to keep old removed games Steam Store Pages on Steam for game reference, detail. It's the equivalent of someone just throwing out all your game boxes for your hard copy CD/DVDs?

Digital distribution is the way to manage games they said. But goes and throws out all info on games Store pages.:steamfacepalm: :steamhappy:

That's actually a more general point I hadn't even considered. Overall data retention. Steam is so frigging huge, it could probably act as a fairly comprehensive look at the history of the industry's PC output years down the line. Origin games notwithstanding. That's an interesting thought.
Last edited by Kirb Your Enthusiasm; 21 Feb, 2017 @ 7:14am
Originally posted by 󠀠:
^ Thanks. Ya maybe if they had even just required a static screen-shot of a removed Store Page, on say any of them.
https://steamhost.cn/app/38220/

Or have a screen-shot stickied or button on the games community hub they do keep for each removed Steam game?

Or have it be the first screen-shot you'll ever see in the games get this... screenshots area?

Or even place a screen-shot in the owners downloaded game files for future refrence.

All kinds of what if? But nah, go somewhere else and look for that information if you still want, its not hosted on Steam any more in any form. lol

I'm all for tracking game devs and publishers, projects, moves to other studios ect, but even so, that is a tough one to try and keep track of everyone, everything history, success, failures...
I mean usless there is a really specific reason like uh Sean Murray?

*cough*Starforge*cough* :p
Start_Running 21 Feb, 2017 @ 8:01am 
Originally posted by Kirburple:

Originally posted by Start_Running:

And why would that be important? Publishers lose rights to distribute games all the time and developer studios go under and re-form all the time.The important data would be what are the games the publisher/developer has the gall to charge money for,

Distribution rights are irrelevant to what I'm getting at, as are the formation and dissolution of studios. Again. Track record. Reputation. Consumers knowing who they're dealing with and having easy access to information about everything that's been made under that name.

Except that they would know nothing. Again. A developer can dissolve and rebrand themselves under e new track record. Clearing their slate each time. A publisher can get saddled with baggage just because they acquired the rights to one particular game in a block of IP in a recently purchased portfolip.



Originally posted by Start_Running:
Some people also think phrenology is omportant.. Look. What you're asking for is something to enable you to make shallow snap judgements.

A blatant false equivalency followed by a thinly-veiled insult.

You're trying to correlate two potentially unrelated pieces of information to paint a picture. Which like phrenology used trhe shape of of a person's head to determine their personality and intelligence. Also that was not a thinly veiled insult but simply an observation of cause and effect.

Especially since you literally have no interest in understanding the how and why. You just want easy premises to make snap judgements as you yourself give evidence for here:

Let me make this abundantly clear - insofar as this matter is concerned, I don't give a damn about the difficulties of game development or industry interactions, because it's not the consumer's problem.[/quote]

News flash. Understanding the interactions gives you a better idea of where the problem came from. If you don't take the time to understand then you basically blame the first person in front of you. It's like blaming the delivery boy for the meal being too salty.

[/i] If a developer gains a poor reputation, whether through poor customer interaction or poor products,

Might suyrprisie you to know that in many cases the developer has very little say in what goes into the product and has little to no weight in customer interactions. Developers are in many cases simply contracted labour. You hire a painter to paint your house,; a publisher or IP holder hires a developer to develop a game.

it's entirely on them, and "but it's hard" is not a defense, nor is it any kind of rebuttal for the idea of making information regarding past conduct available to the consumer.
Not to mention you're being presumptuous.

if you hire a painter and instruct him to paint a house in garrish clashing clours. Is he the one to blame for it looking like a kalediscopic mess? See. That's the crux of it. Developers, are being paid to do a job. The person signing the cheques is the one making the decisions as to what the game is.

take the latest Deus Ex game. You think the development team wanted to add the micro transactions. That was liuterally an 11th hour order handed down to them. And don't even get me started on the deadlines. Oy vey. There's a reason game developers as a professional rack up some of the highest rates of unpaid overtime.

Of course you don't care about it. You have no desire to understand it. You just want to make snap judgements based on your own arbitary and non-existant understanding of circumstances.



If it's that simple, I have to wonder why it doesn't happen all the damned time. Because it certainly doesn't seem to. I'd like some examples if I'm wrong on this.
It happens more often than you're aware of . These sorts of things that don't get a lot of press coverage. Sort of like just how many channels disney actually owns and controls. Likewise for studios.

Take Ion storm. Those were two seperate studios under the same parent publishing company, namely Eidos.

One Ion Storm Studio made Daikatana
The Other, made Deus Ex.

Do you under stand where that breaks down. Of course neither of those games are currently published by Eidos since that company was destroyed and carved up between EA, Actrivision and Ubisoft.





Your example doesn't quite hold up since Interplay is listed as the developer on the store page, but you've got a point on that one.

But Interplay was not the actual developer. Brian fargo Studios was the developer. Interplay were just the people who contracted Brian fargo Studios. Back in them days the developers had very little in the way of ownership of the stuff they created.

Getting around that would ideally mean keeping an accurate record of IPs that change hands. That typically doesn't happen more than once or twice, though. Not sure how much of an extra weight that would put on things.

In other industries, no. In game development. It's as frequent as hurricanes in Summer. Hell there are many games that have been bounced around so many times that honestly no one even knows who owns them anymore. CLosures, IP auctions, mergers, take overs. These all make tracking ownership a bit of a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. there are many so called abandoned games out there that exist in a state of ownership purgatory where no one knows who actually owns it anymore and no one's interested in spending the money to check.

There's also the nuance that publishers don't get pooped on for development practices themselves unless they made the game in question in-house - they're much more likely to get criticised for business practices, which isn't something that an IP sale would be accompanied

And again. In-house or out-house makes little difference. If they contract a third party, the third party is bound to deliver the product the client specifies. Superman 64 may seem like the perfect example of a game witha ♥♥♥♥♥♥ developer, until you realize thant no less than two overseeing agencies had to approve and sign off on it.

Again, it's rather clear , like many, that you have a very limited understanding of just what hppens in game development. ANd since as you say , you have no interest in learning these things. Then all you're asking is for a tool by which you can make blind judgements based oon personal bias and ignorance.

That a publisher/developer no longer has a game listed for sale on a platform may also have to do with a strategic business practice. MAybe they got a deal to make it exclusive to another distributor (see Mass Effect 3).

Hextravert 21 Feb, 2017 @ 8:35am 
What is the saying again? Ignorance is bliss.

I don't think so. And two can play that game.

What is the saying again? Honesty is the best policy. :DEALWITHIT:

Originally posted by MalikQayum:
the game should speak for itself, whether a game developer / publisher has been a part of something before this game is irrelevant, the game should stand on its own merits and not be judged by what has been done before or after it.

what is the saying agian.. don't judge a book by it is cover.
That's a lot of strawmanning.


1. I'm not completely disinterested in the workings of the industry - I'm saying they're irrelevant as to what I'm aiming for with this suggestion. The complexities of what the entities involved are getting up to don't matter when all I'm asking for is a retention of release histories of games that have subsequently been removed from the store.

2. Again, nowhere, NOWHERE have I said that I wanted to utilise this to make petty snap judgements on individual software, and I've already pointed that out. I want information made available to consumers that allows them to obtain a clearer picture of who they're buying from, not just what they're buying. Like it or not, that matters to some people. And no, it's not "like phrenology" since it can actually have a bearing on the industry.

3. Ion Storm Austin and Ion Storm Dallas were pretty well-defined as two seperate studios.
And a quick wiki tells me that Brian Fargo was the founder of Interplay, who are listed as Fallout's developer.


You want to know what I'm looking for? Here's an example:

http://i.imgur.com/IbdUrcY.png

This is a screenshot of steam releases by Codehatch. Starforge is missing, because they pulled it from the store. The forums are still there. I want that entry put back, even if the game can't be bought anymore, because at least then consumers have a chance to go look at the feedback, have a look at what went right, what went wrong, and decide if they can trust the developer they're interested in buying from to treat their customers properly. It's not about snap judgements, it's about creating a setting where prospective customers can develop a more thorough overview of the content creator they're interested in, and how they interact with their playerbase, because that DOES matter to a lot of people.
There's nothing big or complicated about the idea itself, though I can concede that IPs changing hands and the like could make it a bit messy in certain cases, but it's clear we have very different priorities. And that's absolutely fine.
Last edited by Kirb Your Enthusiasm; 21 Feb, 2017 @ 8:36am
< >
Showing 1-15 of 63 comments
Per page: 1530 50